Dawkins: In Praise of Intelligent Design

[Copernicus]

I just attended a lecture by Richard Dawkins in a local high school auditorium. It was entitled In Praise of "Intelligent" Design. It was sponsored by the Northwest Free-thought Alliance. Dawkins' speech, as usual, was articulate, entertaining, soft-spoken, and passionate. In person, he is the opposite of the way his detractors portray him on the internet and in the popular media. He got several standing ovations before and after his speech.

Dawkins said that he created his title for the quote miners out there. The theme of the talk was that we needed to "take back" the term intelligent design, which he also called "neo-design" in contrast with "paleo-design". The latter, of course, refers to the appearance of design brought about by evolution through natural selection. Intelligent "neo-design" is a product of "paleo-design" through natural selection. One very basic difference between the two is that natural selection is always stuck in the past. It cannot see ahead into the future. Intelligent design is future-oriented. Engineers design things because of their projection of future needs.

For example, the vagus nerve supplies motor power to the larynx, but the right and left nerves are of different lengths. The left vagus curves under the aortic arch and is therefore much longer. In humans, it is about a foot and a half longer than the right nerve. In giraffes, it can be as much as 15 feet longer. From the perspective of intelligent design, this is terrible engineering, but we know why it happened. Gradual evolution never gave the left vagus a chance to get above the aorta, and that propagates an asymmetry across many animal species. Paleo-design may seem to work marvelously, but it can turn out to be really crappy design from the perspective of intelligent designers. So there are good ways to distinguish intelligent neo-design from stupid paleo-design.

Do you think that Dawkins' point about the distinction between stupid paleo-design and intelligent neo-design is correct? If not, why not?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It does sound a very good argument (though obviously without seeing it in detail it is more difficult to comment on - I could not see it on you tube); paleo design in this case seems to be more reactive (and supports scientific models of evolution) than neo design which is proactive (and is used by ID proponents), a nice point of differentiation.

 

[lunamoth]

I think it is too clunky to catch on.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

An easier way to think of it is post-design and pre-design, that is more intuitive and catchy.

 

[Man of Faith]

I'm pleased that Dawkins is pushing this design talk because it actually breaks one hurdle that some evolutionists haven’t gotten over yet and that is the world and creatures look designed. If Dawkins embraces design, whether it be paleo or neo then the design question, whether there is design in the world or not is finished. Of course it has been finished for a while but there have been a few holdouts.

Now that the design question has been concluded and the conclusion is there does appear to be design in the world then the next question is what the origin of this design is. From the OP all I see from Dawkins is natural selection. If that is the case, then he has a problem because natural selection is allowed in the creation model and there must be more to paleo-design than natural selection because in order for a trait to be selected then it must have already been in the genes of the creature. In neo-design the designer could have put the genes to be selected in the organism during the initial creation.

In light of this new information from Dawkins, what I see is that best explanation of design is neo-design. But of course it is obvious that the OP can’t tell the whole story in just three paragraphs, but I have seen this before where evolutionists try to remove talk about the needed mutations that we can’t see and keep in the natural selection that we can see. However random mutations do need to be put back in the discussion if we are going to get humans from anything else naturally.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

...

Evolutionists constantly talk about the design of things as they are or were, it is one of the key arguments against the intelligent design of things as they are envisaged to one day be.

 

[johnhanks]

I just attended a lecture by Richard Dawkins in a local high school auditorium. It was entitled In Praise of "Intelligent" Design. It was sponsored by the Northwest Free-thought Alliance. Dawkins' speech, as usual, was articulate, entertaining, soft-spoken, and passionate. In person, he is the opposite of the way his detractors portray him on the internet and in the popular media. He got several standing ovations before and after his speech.

Dawkins said that he created his title for the quote miners out there. The theme of the talk was that we needed to "take back" the term intelligent design, which he also called "neo-design" in contrast with "paleo-design". The latter, of course, refers to the appearance of design brought about by evolution through natural selection. Intelligent "neo-design" is a product of "paleo-design" through natural selection. One very basic difference between the two is that natural selection is always stuck in the past. It cannot see ahead into the future. Intelligent design is future-oriented. Engineers design things because of their projection of future needs.

For example, the vagus nerve supplies motor power to the larynx, but the right and left nerves are of different lengths. The left vagus curves under the aortic arch and is therefore much longer. In humans, it is about a foot and a half longer than the right nerve. In giraffes, it can be as much as 15 feet longer. From the perspective of intelligent design, this is terrible engineering, but we know why it happened. Gradual evolution never gave the left vagus a chance to get above the aorta, and that propagates an asymmetry across many animal species. Paleo-design may seem to work marvelously, but it can turn out to be really crappy design from the perspective of intelligent designers. So there are good ways to distinguish intelligent neo-design from stupid paleo-design.

Do you think that Dawkins' point about the distinction between stupid paleo-design and intelligent neo-design is correct? If not, why not?

In view of the lecture's title, couldn't help noticing the date on which it was delivered.

 

[Looncall]

I'm pleased that Dawkins is pushing this design talk because it actually breaks one hurdle that some evolutionists haven’t gotten over yet and that is the world and creatures look designed. If Dawkins embraces design, whether it be paleo or neo then the design question, whether there is design in the world or not is finished. Of course it has been finished for a while but there have been a few holdouts.

Now that the design question has been concluded and the conclusion is there does appear to be design in the world then the next question is what the origin of this design is. From the OP all I see from Dawkins is natural selection. If that is the case, then he has a problem because natural selection is allowed in the creation model and there must be more to paleo-design than natural selection because in order for a trait to be selected then it must have already been in the genes of the creature. In neo-design the designer could have put the genes to be selected in the organism during the initial creation.

In light of this new information from Dawkins, what I see is that best explanation of design is neo-design. But of course it is obvious that the OP can’t tell the whole story in just three paragraphs, but I have seen this before where evolutionists try to remove talk about the needed mutations that we can’t see and keep in the natural selection that we can see. However random mutations do need to be put back in the discussion if we are going to get humans from anything else naturally.

Being dishonest again, eh? Dawkins talked of apparent design. That is not a loophole you can use to sneak in your god when it is clear that the appearance of design comes by natural selection working on variation.

Where do you get the idea that any one is denying mutations? Mutations can be detected very well indeed. Do try to be honest, will you? You might enjoy the novelty.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I'm pleased that Dawkins is pushing this design talk because it actually breaks one hurdle that some evolutionists haven’t gotten over yet and that is the world and creatures look designed. If Dawkins embraces design, whether it be paleo or neo then the design question, whether there is design in the world or not is finished. Of course it has been finished for a while but there have been a few holdouts.

Now that the design question has been concluded and the conclusion is there does appear to be design in the world then the next question is what the origin of this design is. From the OP all I see from Dawkins is natural selection. If that is the case, then he has a problem because natural selection is allowed in the creation model and there must be more to paleo-design than natural selection because in order for a trait to be selected then it must have already been in the genes of the creature. In neo-design the designer could have put the genes to be selected in the organism during the initial creation.

In light of this new information from Dawkins, what I see is that best explanation of design is neo-design. But of course it is obvious that the OP can’t tell the whole story in just three paragraphs, but I have seen this before where evolutionists try to remove talk about the needed mutations that we can’t see and keep in the natural selection that we can see. However random mutations do need to be put back in the discussion if we are going to get humans from anything else naturally.

I think you've misunderstood, Man of Faith.

Organisms have the illusion of design. Natural selection has fine-tuned organisms for a very long period of time, and thus today animals and plants look as if they have been designed and engineered to almost perfection.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm pleased that Dawkins is pushing this design talk because it actually breaks one hurdle that some evolutionists haven’t gotten over yet and that is the world and creatures look designed. If Dawkins embraces design, whether it be paleo or neo then the design question, whether there is design in the world or not is finished. Of course it has been finished for a while but there have been a few holdouts.

Now that the design question has been concluded and the conclusion is there does appear to be design in the world then the next question is what the origin of this design is. From the OP all I see from Dawkins is natural selection. If that is the case, then he has a problem because natural selection is allowed in the creation model and there must be more to paleo-design than natural selection because in order for a trait to be selected then it must have already been in the genes of the creature. In neo-design the designer could have put the genes to be selected in the organism during the initial creation.

In light of this new information from Dawkins, what I see is that best explanation of design is neo-design. But of course it is obvious that the OP can’t tell the whole story in just three paragraphs, but I have seen this before where evolutionists try to remove talk about the needed mutations that we can’t see and keep in the natural selection that we can see. However random mutations do need to be put back in the discussion if we are going to get humans from anything else naturally.

Did you really get that out of the OP?

Dawkins said that he created his title for the quote miners out there...

Bingo

 

[shawn001]

I'm pleased that Dawkins is pushing this design talk because it actually breaks one hurdle that some evolutionists haven’t gotten over yet and that is the world and creatures look designed. If Dawkins embraces design, whether it be paleo or neo then the design question, whether there is design in the world or not is finished. Of course it has been finished for a while but there have been a few holdouts.

Now that the design question has been concluded and the conclusion is there does appear to be design in the world then the next question is what the origin of this design is. From the OP all I see from Dawkins is natural selection. If that is the case, then he has a problem because natural selection is allowed in the creation model and there must be more to paleo-design than natural selection because in order for a trait to be selected then it must have already been in the genes of the creature. In neo-design the designer could have put the genes to be selected in the organism during the initial creation.

In light of this new information from Dawkins, what I see is that best explanation of design is neo-design. But of course it is obvious that the OP can’t tell the whole story in just three paragraphs, but I have seen this before where evolutionists try to remove talk about the needed mutations that we can’t see and keep in the natural selection that we can see. However random mutations do need to be put back in the discussion if we are going to get humans from anything else naturally.

Man of faith, you keep talking about this creation model and have yet to produce it?

Lets see it?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I've read plenty of books by Dawkins and Dennett where they freely use the word design when talking about the effects of natural processes. It's pretty obvious they don't mean intentional design by an intelligent agent.

-Nato

 

[Man of Faith]

Being dishonest again, eh? Dawkins talked of apparent design. That is not a loophole you can use to sneak in your god when it is clear that the appearance of design comes by natural selection working on variation.

Where do you get the idea that any one is denying mutations? Mutations can be detected very well indeed. Do try to be honest, will you? You might enjoy the novelty.

The OP said that Dawkins was trying to take back the term "intelligent design". There was no mention in the OP about apparent design.

 

[Man of Faith]

Man of faith, you keep talking about this creation model and have yet to produce it?

Lets see it?

Actually, you've failed to remember it.

 

[shawn001]

Actually, you've failed to remember it.

No you never provided it, you just keep mentioning it, whatever it is?

 

[Looncall]

The OP said that Dawkins was trying to take back the term "intelligent design". There was no mention in the OP about apparent design.

Wrong again!

 

[Carpenter Rabbi]

Actually, you've failed to remember it.

If you have access to it, then surely you'd be willing to show us the information again to refresh our memories?

 

[Man of Faith]

If you have access to it, then surely you'd be willing to show us the information again to refresh our memories?

I've found that it doesn't do any good to provide it. I've probably provided it a dozen times already in the past few years. It should be common knowledge of the learned. Maybe Dawkins will provide it one day and then it will get remembered by evolutionists.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Maybe this will help in digging up some old discredited Creationist arguments.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/87305-dishonesty-creationists.html

 

[Carpenter Rabbi]

I've found that it doesn't do any good to provide it. I've probably provided it a dozen times already in the past few years. It should be common knowledge of the learned. Maybe Dawkins will provide it one day and then it will get remembered by evolutionists.

Some of us are newer, and thus may not have seen it in the past at all. Could you repost it or link to where you have posted it? It couldn't hurt.